Talk:Cambyses II of Persia
Deletion I'm actually inclined to keep, since it explains a play that Marlowe did not write in OTL. TR (talk) 02:45, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :Definitely a good argument.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:29, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :I'm not happy with creating character articles for plays about them but I don't see a simple way around this so will accept the need for the article. ML4E (talk) 20:18, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :I'd keep it. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:42, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :::For sake of consistency, this should be an article about the play, just like The Cid is an article about Marlowe's fictional play and not the historical figure. Both Rodrigo and Cambyses can get a mention in the article about post-mortem references to historical characters.Eljuma (talk) 16:58, October 30, 2016 (UTC) :::I, for one, would like that if you want to take a shot at reworking this. ML4E (talk) 18:03, October 30, 2016 (UTC) ::::I didn't know we had an article for El Cid. TR (talk) 19:28, October 30, 2016 (UTC) ::::Neither did I. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:30, October 31, 2016 (UTC) Deletion Part II Now that our rules have changed significantly, this should be a hist fig, while the play "Cambyses, King of Persia (Ruled Britannia)" can be created as a redirect to Marlowe's RB biography.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:53, October 24, 2017 (UTC) :No, the historical figure has no significance whatsoever to RB. There is no more need for a Hist. Ref. for him than there is for Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar because of The Cid. The Redirect should be renamed "Cambyses, King of Persia (Play)" the way we have Caligula (play) and all character categories removed. ML4E (talk) 16:22, October 24, 2017 (UTC) ::I agree. TR (talk) 21:29, October 24, 2017 (UTC) :After I expressed disagreement with the name "Cambyses, King of Persia (Ruled Britannia)", Jonathan went and created it anyway without further discussion. Aside from my previous point about consistency above, a further objection I have is that the "(RB)" looks like a redirect to a subsection rather than a play name. I think "(play)" makes things clearer. ML4E (talk) 23:02, October 24, 2017 (UTC) ::There is another such titled play in OTL, written before the RB POD.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:15, October 24, 2017 (UTC) :::Yes, well if we ever need to create an article for that, then we will worry about it then. Probably "Cambyses, King of Persia (play - RB)" and "Cambyses, King of Persia (play- Other Work)". My main beef is you didn't discuss it further but went and created the redirect. Notwithstanding, I still think "(play)" is better than "(RB)" for the reasons given above and the unlikelihood people will confuse it with an OTL play produced in 1667. ML4E (talk) 00:08, October 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::In the interest of consistency, it should have "play" in the title. I'm willing to gamble that no one coming here is looking for the more obscure OTL play. TR (talk) 02:57, October 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::Having a chance to sleep on it, I think if it ever comes up then "(Marlowe's Play)" and "(Settle's Play)" would be more appropriate with "Cambyses, King of Persia (Other Work)" as the redirect to the story sub-section in Settle's Play. We have been doing that, sort of instinctively, and I think it should be codified that "(work's name)" be reserved for redirects and possibly fictional characters within a work. We do that for minor character redirects and it would work for characters with one name that are important enough for individual articles. We do something similar now for city name duplicates by adding ", State Name" (e.g. Jackson, Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi and Jackson, Wyoming). ML4E (talk) 16:58, October 25, 2017 (UTC)